NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA JAZMIN CADENAS ESPINOZA; CRISTAL VIANEY BELLO CADENAS,

Petitioners,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 17

- 71534 Agency Nos. A208

- 117

- 705

A208

- 117

- 706

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted August 29, 2022 * * Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. Maria Jazmin Cadenas Espinoza (“Cadenas”) and her daughter Cristal Vianey Bello Cadenas (together “Petitioners”) , native s and citizen s of Mexico , petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel u nanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 1 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

dismissing their appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)

. We have jurisdiction unde r 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny the petition for review.
1
. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners
cannot demonstrate a well

- founded fear of persecution in Mexico on account of family ties. Petitioners’ persecution claim is based entirely on a fear that they will be targeted by gang members who ha ve previously targeted Cadenas’s sister

- in

law and mother, and who ha ve previously made threats against Cadenas’s family. But the incidents involving Cadenas’s sister

- in

- law and mother occurred nearly seven years ago and were separate and unrelated

. T here is no evidence in the record indicating that Petitioners have ever been personally targeted or threatened by gangs , or that they have been sought out by gangs after their departure from Mexico. Further, based on the evidence in the record before the BIA, Cadenas’s
sister

- in

- law, mother, and other family members continue to reside in Mexico without incident

. S

ee Hakeem v. INS , 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001) (“An applicant ’ s claim of persecution upon return is weakened, even undercut, when similarly

- situated family members continue to live in the country without incident

. . . .”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ramadan v. Gonzales , 479 F. 3d 646, 650 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

. The BIA’s conclusion was therefore supported by substantial evidence. See Duran

- Rodriguez v. Barr , 9183

F.3d 1025, 1028 (9th Cir. 2019) (“Under [the substantial evidence] standard, we must uphold the agency determ ination unless the evidence compels a contrary conclusion.”).
2. Because Petitioners did not meet the lower burden of proof applicable to asylum, they necessarily did not meet the higher bar for establishing eligibility for withholding of removal. See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(b); Silva v. Garland , 993 F.3d 705, 719 (9th Cir. 2021)

. 3
. S ubstantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that Petitioners
failed to demonstrate t hat it is more likely than not they will be tortured if removed to Mexico. There is no evidence that petitioners suffered any past torture in Mexico, and there is no evidence anyone is currently interested in Petitioners’ whereabouts or has any desire to harm them in the future. Further, there is evidence in the record that Petitioners could relocate within Mexico to avoid any harm. See Maldonado v. Lynch , 786 F.3d 1155, 1164 (9th Cir. 2015)

. Therefore,

“ the claims of possible torture remain speculative

. ” Xiao Fei Zheng v. Holder , 644 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2011)

. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED
.